0 comments Jay Mariotti Has a Hot Sports Take About Mark Cuban; Still Desperately Craves Attention

Jay Mariotti is still struggling for relevance. In the past few years he's been disowned by ESPN, pissed on his co-workers at the "Sun-Times" while weaseling out the door, and pled guilty to charges of roughing up his girlfriend. But he's totally happy now. In fact, he's very eager to say just how happy he is, which if you ask me, means the lady doth protest too much. If you have to keep saying how happy you are, perhaps you are just trying to convince yourself.

So Jay wants relevance and he's spitting out the hot sports takes on his page at Sports Talk Florida like they are going out of style. He wants attention and he's going to keep saying bold shit to get that attention. Mark Cuban recently tried to be nuanced and discuss race, bigotry and walking across the street, but Jay Mariotti will have none of that. Rather than understand the nuance, he compares Cuban to Donald Sterling and Jay tries to be as controversial and contrarian as possible to get attention from anyone important. His ego feeds on attention and his ego has been hungry for a while now.

If you’re going to ban Donald Sterling from the NBA, don’t you now have to eject Mark Cuban, too?

No, no the NBA does not have to eject Mark Cuban. You see how Jay starts off with his hot sports take immediately to grab the reader and get attention.

"Mark Cuban is as bad as Donald Sterling. Mark Cuban should be banned from the NBA."

This reaction is so overdone and blown out of proportion it's obvious that Mariotti can't truly be serious about it. It's clearly a reaction created to get a reaction from readers and the public to Mariotti's reaction. He's doing the journalistic equivalent of yanking ponytails and running away.

In explosive comments that have me asking about his own emotional stability

I mean, this is just hilarious. "Explosive comments" and they have Mariotti "asking about his own (Cuban's) emotional stability." I feel like Robert Stack should be reading the audiobook of this column. It's all very dramatic sounding.

the irascible owner of the Dallas Mavericks opened his big mouth much too far this time and put his fellow league owners and commissioner Adam Silver in a shockingly difficult position.

Here is the issue with Jay's mocked-up, faux outrage. Donald Sterling has actually made and continued to make racist comments. His comments were of a racist nature. They were made recently and in the past. Mark Cuban did not make racist comments, but commented on his own racism or bigotry that he fights with on a daily basis. One person's comments are made to be hateful, another person's comments are made to provoke debate and an open discussion about built-in bigotry that people hold. One is non-productive, another is productive.

Speaking at a conference in Nashville, Cuban portrayed himself publicly as every bit the racist Sterling was on a private recording in March. He tried to claim he was offering a nuanced view on how far society has progressed

Which is how it came off to many who listened and read Cuban's comments. It's him explaining that he isn't perfect, but there is a difference in true racism in the vein of Donald Sterling's actions over the last 30 years and trying to avoid a certain person on the street who fits a stereotype a person may be fearful of. I don't think Cuban should get slapped on the back for admitting bigotry, but he also shouldn't be thrown out of the NBA because he dared to discuss race rather than stand on a high moral pedestal where he falsely states he would NEVER participate in any bigotry in any form.

but nuance is impossible to convey when Cuban admits to this racist tug: “I mean, we’re all prejudiced in one way or another. If I see a black kid in a hoodie and it’s late at night, I’m walking to the other side of the street. And if on that side of the street, there’s a guy that has tattoos all over his face — white guy, bald head, tattoos everywhere — I’m walking back to the other side of the street. And the list goes on of stereotypes that we all live up to and are fearful of.’’

It's not a very kind admission, but it certainly is nuanced. I am not sure Jay Mariotti knows what "nuanced" means, because Cuban's admission is very nearly the definition of nuance. Mariotti is about to grab hold of the "black kid in a hoodie" comment because that's going to get him the most attention and prove the point he wants to prove best, but he shouldn't be blinded by the example Cuban gave and ignore the meaning behind the example. Of course, not making a huge deal out of this comment won't get Mariotti pageviews and eyes to read his columns.

Cuban says his comments are a teaching moment, that we must understand the context in which he was speaking. Sorry, I can’t get past the “black kid in a hoodie’’ statement.

We know you can't, Jay. We know. It's something you need to grab on and hold with a death grip in order to prove your "Mark Cuban is as racist as Donald Sterling" point of view.

Here is the fuller version of Cuban’s remarks:

“In this day and age, this country has really come a long way putting any type of bigotry behind us, regardless of who it’s toward. We’ve come a long way, and with that progress comes a price. We’re a lot more vigilant and we’re a lot less tolerant of different views, and it’s not necessarily easy for everybody to adapt or evolve.
“I mean, we’re all prejudiced in one way or another. If I see a black kid in a hoodie and it’s late at night, I’m walking to the other side of the street. And if on that side of the street, there’s a guy that has tattoos all over his face — white guy, bald head, tattoos everywhere — I’m walking back to the other side of the street. And the list goes on of stereotypes that we all live up to and are fearful of. So in my businesses, I try not to be hypocritical. I know that I’m not perfect. I know that I live in a glass house, and it’s not appropriate for me to throw stones.”

I read quite a few articles bemoaning the lack of characters in sports these days. Managers, coaches and owners who shoot from the hip and do funny, odd things. This situation is a good example of why they don't shoot from the hip and aren't characters. Prepared, boring comments aren't taken out of context, but unprepared comments on a subject can involve an unfortunate reference the vultures in the media will cling on to in order to castigate that owner or manager. In this case, it's the Trayvon Martin reference that may or may not be a Trayvon Martin reference.

Cuban was simply saying he believes everyone is prejudiced in some way and then lumps himself in this category, while giving an example. He's simply saying he understands he's not perfect but there is a difference in avoiding a certain person on the streets and openly committing racist acts and making racist comments over a span of 30 years. Therein lies the nuance.

As someone who knows Cuban and lobbied aggressively for him in the media to become the Chicago Cubs owner years ago, I am stunned.

Jay Mariotti threw his public support behind Cuban to be the Cubs owner and this is how Cuban repays him? Cuban getting support from Mariotti probably served to hurt Cuban's chances of becoming the Cubs owner.

He says we’re misunderstanding him, but social experiement or otherwise, he blew it with the “hoodie’’ comment. It reeks of racism and blatant insensitivity.

Grab a hold of that phrase, Jay. Grab a hold, ignore the rest and don't let go.

At least Sterling rightfully can claim that the infamous V. Stiviano set him up when she taped him — without his consent, which is against the law in California — in a conversation in which she seemed to bait him with questions about African-Americans.

Here goes Jay ignoring important facts to fit his point. Who set Sterling up to be the most discriminatory landlord in United States history? Who set up Sterling when he was sued by Elgin Baylor for employment discrimination? It wasn't just one specific event with Sterling, it was a series of events.

“You don’t. There’s no law against stupid,’’ Cuban said. “I’m the one who says don’t force the stupid people to be quiet. I want to know who the morons are.’’

And dutifully Jay heeds Cuban's need to know who the morons are by writing this column.

All Cuban has done is add himself to the moron list. Nuance? This is a little boy trying to get away with something Sterling could not. You don’t talk about advances in fighting bigotry, then admit to your own racism.

What's the alternative? Talk about advances in fighting bigotry and then try to take moral high ground under the false pretense that you personally have zero traces of racism in your thoughts and actions? Lying to yourself and society while pretending to be honest is better than admitting your own faults as an example of how you are trying to fight through own bigotry?

Cuban is a hater, too, regardless of context, when he makes the “black kid in a hoodie’’ comment.

Yes, "regardless of context" Cuban is a hater. Ignore the context completely, how could it matter? Cuban used the phrase "black kid in a hoodie" in a sentence about racism, so context doesn't matter when hot sports takes and overreactions have already begun.

The night before Cuban’s comments, Silver was asked if Sterling is ruining what’s great about pro basketball.

“it’s not just the performances on the court that it’s a distraction from. And I think what made this moment bigger than basketball, certainly for everybody involved in the league, and that moment being that recording, was that it did come from within, that under David Stern and commissioners that came before him, barriers were broken with this league, and I think for those who say it’s a slippery slope, and my God, what happens to the next player or the next owner who does something wrong, I’d only say there’s something particular about race issues when it comes to sports, and maybe the NBA in particular.

...but at least within the boundaries of my authority, I feel an obligation to protect the people who are within this league, and so that’s my reaction.”

So how does he deal with Cuban?

Obviously, the death penalty is on the table at this point. Either legal injection, but only if that is the least humane course of action, or the electric chair. I'm sure it would have been much more preferable for Cuban to have kept his thoughts to himself, because it's fine to be slightly bigoted, but just keep it to yourself and don't attempt to further a discussion on a race-related topic. Staying in denial about a person's own bigoted views is obviously the most important thing to do. God knows the United States doesn't need an open conversation about race relations.

How can you give him a warning and continue to prosecute Sterling without being called a stinking hypocrite?

Because Mark Cuban wasn't making his comments out of hatred, but as an example of how far society goes in terms of discussing race and facing our own bigoted views.

What is worse sin, telling a 31-year-old gold-digger to avoid Magic Johnson and other African-Americans at games — or saying, “If I see a black kid in a hoodie and it’s late at night, I’m walking to the other side of the street.’’

If Jay wasn't being so willfully ignorant about the full story behind Donald Sterling's lifetime ban from the NBA then...well, he wouldn't be Jay Mariotti if he was acknowledging the whole story and not intentionally forgetting the whole part where Donald Sterling had a history of racism prior to his comments that ended with his lifetime ban from the NBA. Sterling has the largest housing discrimination settlement in United Stated history collected by the Justice Department on his resume, as well as a thorough history of making racist comments. It's not just one thing that led to his lifetime ban, despite Jay's ignorant attempts to pretend it is.

Again, when someone is that candid about his views and fears, how can we believe Cuban when he tries to come off as a fully tolerant, equal-opportunity employer who will help people overcome their bigotry?

Because the alternative is for Cuban to come off as fully tolerant and this not be exactly true. It's typical Jay Mariotti that he prefers a person lie about his/her bigoted views rather than admit the truth. This really brings some insight into Jay's character. He thinks more of people who lie and deceive themselves as opposed to those people who are honest about their intentions and thoughts. It makes me wonder if Jay has been honest about past indiscretions in his life.

Cuban said. “Because it does my company no good, it does my customers no good, it does society no good if my response to somebody and their racism and bigotry is to say, ‘It’s not right for you to be here. Go take your attitude somewhere else.’’’

I hear that. But I’m hearing “black kid in a hoodie’’ much louder, probably because it strikes too closely to the Trayvon Martin shooting in 2012.

This is the fifth time Jay has brought up the "black kid in a hoodie" phrase. He's desperate for this to mean something in order to prove his larger point.

Silver values Cuban’s high-tech expertise, social-media involvement and standing as a fan-friendly owner. But there can be no double standards here. A racist owner is a racist owner, and just as Silver is punishing Sterling for the right reasons, he should punish Cuban for exacerbating the problem.

Trying to talk about race relations by admitting one's own bigoted tendencies = "exacerbating the problem."

Cuban should apologize at once, own up to his error and hope the NBA has mercy on him.

Yes, Cuban should apologize for openly admitting the way he stereotypes people and learn to keep his bigoted and stereotypes to himself. The world is a much better place if nobody admits their faults and pretends they don't exist.

My guess is, because Cuban is a valued member of the owners’ club and Sterling was not, he’ll slide.

Silver may also let it slide because Cuban's comments were not even close to being on par with the comments that Donald Sterling made nor on par with Sterling's actions over a 30 year period. So there's that too.

Shame on Silver, the owners and all of Cuban’s Mickey Mouse teammates at Disney/ESPN for not calling out the hypocrisy.

I'm not sure this column is going to get Mariotti the attention he so desires, but I can't fault him for trying really hard to be as trolling as possible to get the attention. Mariotti even throws in a couple of shots at Disney/ESPN, because he's still bitter he doesn't work for them and they refuse to hire him. Disney/ESPN are evil when they don't employ Jay Mariotti, but don't doubt for a second he wouldn't go back to work for them if given the chance.

Despite Jay's latching onto the phrase "black kid in a hoodie" there is a difference in what Donald Sterling said (and did over a 30 year period) and what Mark Cuban said. I don't find it surprising that Jay thinks it's better for society for a person to keep his bigoted thoughts to himself. I just wish Jay would keep all of his thoughts to himself.

If you’re going to ban Donald Sterling from the NBA, don’t you now have to eject Mark Cuban, too?
Read more at http://www.sportstalkflorida.com/nuanced-cubans-words-as-racist-as-sterlings/#ZItuHQmFEzt8EqL0.99

7 comments Mark Cuban Says Brittney Griner Could Play in the NBA and Jemele Hill Somehow Takes Offense to This

I'm pretty sure JemeHill (I combine her first and last name because it is fun to type it that way) could take any compliment given to a person and turn it into an insult. Mark Cuban had the audacity to say Brittney Griner could play in the NBA or that he would think about drafting her. To add insult to injury, it appears Cuban was entirely serious. I say "to add insult to injury" because this comment by Mark Cuban offers a false promise that is setting back women, women's sports, the WNBA, and most likely the world's chances to avoid a nuclear war with North Korea in the mind of JemeHill. JemeHill is very offended by Cuban's comment. She is offended out of proportion for how much she should be offended. She thinks Mark Cuban is saying Griner needs to play men's sports to legitimize herself, when he was simply saying she is a great basketball player and he would think about drafting her. It's easy to take offense to something when you seemingly look for things that piss you off and skew the intended meaning of other otherwise innocent statements.

I have no doubt that Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban was sincere when he said he would draft Brittney Griner, or at the very least, perhaps invite her to play for Dallas' summer league team in Las Vegas.

But it was an offensive thing to say! How dare Mark Cuban give out compliments!

I wonder if JemeHill would have liked it better if Cuban had stated women had no business playing in the NBA? My guess is if that happened we would get a column from her stating women could play in the NBA and that Mark Cuban was wrong to suggest Griner couldn't make it in the NBA. You can't win sometimes.

But unfortunately that's not how Griner responded. Instead, she tweeted to Cuban: "I would hold my own! Lets do it."

I can't believe Brittney Griner is willing to demean herself by taking Cuban up on an invitation to play in the NBA. Just when you think women's athletics can't be set back any further something like this happens. 

My problem with Cuban's offer has nothing to do with whether I believe Griner can play with men. The gap in physical strength would be a huge issue for her, 

Right, but it is still nice for Mark Cuban to Tweet that he wouldn't mind Griner playing for the Mavericks. It's not going to happen, but it is a nice compliment. Only a demented person could find a way to take offense to this offer.

just as her quickness and array of post moves might be an issue for some of the men she would play.

We have talked about women playing basketball against men before. No, Brittney Griner would not be too quick for the men that would guard her in the post. If Griner has good moves, it would be offset by the fact she is going to struggle to get position in the post due to the gap in physical strength that JemeHill just mentioned.

I would imagine that Griner already has spent a good deal of her career playing against boys and men recreationally. But how she could fit in the NBA isn't really the point.

No, it really is the point. Mark Cuban said Griner could play in the NBA. Griner said, "Let's do it." JemeHill wrote a column about how this offer to play in the NBA offers a false promise to Griner. The entire discussion and this entire article is about how she would fit in the NBA. I don't see how anyone can believe this article is/should be about anything else.

What I don't like about Cuban's comments is that it perpetuates the dangerous idea that great female athletes need to validate themselves by competing against men.

Well it's not about how Griner fits in the NBA when JemeHill decides to take a comment and blow it up into something bigger than it really is. Mark Cuban's comment doesn't perpetuate the "dangerous" idea female athletes need to validate themselves competing against men. It says Griner has validated her skills against women and Cuban thinks she is good enough to play against men, despite the gap in physical strength and because of the post moves JemeHill just mentioned. Notice how JemeHill immediately evaluates Griner's ability to play in the NBA and then decides this evaluation (that she herself just made) is "dangerous." It's a compliment that Mark Cuban was paying Griner. Just take it as that.

This season, Griner was the best college player in women's or men's hoops.

In JemeHill's opinion it is "dangerous" to try and evaluate Griner against men, but this is the second time in this fairly short column JemeHill has compared Griner to men's basketball players. So apparently this is a dangerous comparison, unless JemeHill would like to make this comparison, in which case the comparison only goes to show how great Brittney Griner is at playing basketball.

Griner doesn't have anything to prove. But because of Cuban's interest in her, it's opened the door for people to talk more about what Griner can't do, rather than appreciate what she can.

But what I don't get is why JemeHill is criticizing this discussion people have about what Griner can't do even though SHE HERSELF JUST TALKED ABOUT WHAT GRINER CAN'T DO! JemeHill said:

My problem with Cuban's offer has nothing to do with whether I believe Griner can play with men. The gap in physical strength would be a huge issue for her, 

No one is forcing JemeHill to make this comparison, she is choosing to do so on her own free will. Mark Cuban's comment doesn't highlight what Griner can't do, but highlights how good of a women's basketball player Griner is.

Once Cuban's comments spread, it was open season on Griner. She's too slow to play with men. She isn't physical enough. She doesn't have the athleticism.

But these are comments JemeHill just made herself. She is essentially citing her own reaction to Cuban's comment as an example of how some will make it open season on Griner. JemeHill's own reaction and comments about Griner are the very comments JemeHill finds troubling. She basically finds herself "dangerous" for making these comments.

I've come to believe JemeHill doesn't have a ton of talent. She has to take offense, change the subject or talk around an issue in order to be able to write a column. Even once she takes offense, she still can't help but create a problem that doesn't exist or cite her own opinion as the only supporting evidence for her column.

Everything she accomplished is being measured against professional male players, and that simply isn't fair.

The reason she is being compared to NBA players is because she has been so dominant in college. Considering (in my opinion) no women's basketball player could thrive in the NBA, it is a compliment to even suggest Griner could. It doesn't take away from Griner's accomplishments. Plus, JemeHill herself is the one not being fair to Griner and comparing her to NBA players. She does it in this very article.

As the WNBA draft approaches, the conversation should be about how Griner's college stardom can translate to professional success, and perhaps boost the WNBA to another level in popularity. 

Good luck with that. I don't know if Griner has the ability to pull in people to the WNBA who haven't ordinarily watched women's basketball.

This Griner situation reminds me of how, every so often, people would wonder whether former Tennessee coach Pat Summitt should coach men.

This seems like an interesting topic of conversation. There have also been people who wondered if Coach K could coach NBA players. Simply by wondering if Coach K could coach NBA players over a full season doesn't mean he has to validate himself by coaching these players? No, of course not. How good of a women's basketball coach would Phil Jackson have been? I think he would have been a better women's basketball coach than a men's basketball coach, but that's just my opinion. Me wondering how good Phil Jackson would have been at UConn coaching women basketball players doesn't mean Jackson needs to validate himself by coaching women.

I don't doubt that Summit could do it, but I reject the idea that Summit needed to coach men to legitimize what anyone with common sense already knew -- that the woman can coach.

JemeHill can be such a pain in the ass sometimes. Simply asking if Coach Summit could coach men (and no one says she "should" coach men, it's always if she "could" coach men) isn't saying she has to coach men to legitimize herself. This is another example of JemeHill creating an fake argument that she can dispel in order to better prove her point. She does this quite frequently. JemeHill will make up a point of view that few or no people hold, then will rebut that argument in a column and believe she proved something. She will write something like, "The idea LeBron isn't the best forward on the Heat roster is ridiculous," and then start to disprove this argument few or no people are making.

I would not compare Griner playing in the NBA to Danica Patrick competing against men in NASCAR. For one, NASCAR is one of the few sports men and women can compete with one another without strength or stature being an issue.

Only someone who hasn't ever watched a NASCAR race would make this statement and believe it to be true. Being a NASCAR driver takes conditioning and strength. The difference in men and women's bodies can be seen in this sport. There's a reason Dale Earnhardt Jr. claims part of his resurgence is a better dedication to conditioning and getting in shape.

The only things that matter in NASCAR are reaction time, endurance and, of course, the car.

I don't like NASCAR, but this is a very simplistic way to look at it. It's like saying the only things that matter in basketball is being athletic and being able to shoot. 

But having not won a race in NASCAR and having barely won anything as an IndyCar driver, she has invited criticism about whether she's good enough. Madison Avenue loves her, but can she win? 

And why has she barely won anything? Is it because she isn't very good or the fact she is a tiny person gives her a small disadvantage when driving against men? I'm asking, because apparently JemeHill is a NASCAR expert and claims there is no disadvantage to a woman driving a race car as compared to a man driving a race car.

But as we saw with Patrick, there is a lot of pressure that comes with competing in a male-dominated sport. And while Griner dealt with high expectations at Baylor because the team looked practically unbeatable, vying for a spot on an NBA team would bring scrutiny unlike anything she experienced in college. 

And of course the insinuation Griner could handle this scrutiny is a huge insult to Griner, women, and women's sports.

From Billie Jean King versus Bobby Riggs to Patrick versus the pack, there has always been an infatuation with women who compete against men.

And an infatuation with men who compete against women. It can go both ways.

In 1979, Ann Meyers signed a contract with the Pacers and tried out for the team. Even though she didn't make an NBA roster, her efforts to play in the NBA never damaged her credibility.

So history says if Brittney Griner tried out for an NBA roster then her credibility would not be damaged, but somehow JemeHill thinks it is different 34 years later when society and the NBA is possibly more accepting of a women's ability to play basketball.

That's not how it would work today.

This is not a statement of fact simply because you hold yourself in high esteem and make this statement. This is purely an opinion.

If Griner flirted with the NBA and failed, it would do a lot more damage. There would be an obsession with her successes and failures. Every missed and made shot would be replayed repeatedly on TV and throughout social media.

I don't know if it would do any real damage. It would simply reinforce what some people already believe, that an elite women's basketball player can't compete with elite men's basketball players. Maybe that's JemeHill's biggest fear, the confirmation that elite women can't compete with elite men in basketball. I don't see it as the end of the world. Men's college basketball teams can't compete with NBA teams and I don't think that takes anything away from the men's college basketball game. We saw a woman fail at kicking at the NFL Combine recently and it hasn't destroyed women's sports, so perhaps we would see Griner struggle and simply move on with our lives.

One of the greatest players in women's college basketball history would risk being relegated to being the punch line of far too many jokes.

I already joke about her even before she has played one game against men. (Mean comments to follow) I'm not entirely convinced Brittney Griner isn't a guy. She has kind of a deep voice and I'm not passing up the idea she could just be a really girly-looking guy. I don't say this because I enjoy being mean to women athletes or because she is good at basketball, but because she has kind of a deep voice and I'm not entirely convinced she doesn't have a different set of chromosomes from other women basketball players. If a male basketball player had a high-pitched voice I would wonder if he wasn't really a girl. It's fun to be mean like this.

Or worse, considered a failure.

I don't think she would be considered a failure. Ann Meyers wasn't considered a failure 34 years ago and I really believe the more progressive attitude towards women sports means Brittney wouldn't be seen as a failure just like Ann Meyers wasn't seen as a failure.

There is no question that Griner could gain much more exposure if she, say, decided to play in a few summer league games. But the NBA doesn't need any more marketing help. The WNBA, however, desperately needs more players and personalities like Griner. 

This is a completely different argument. Whether the NBA or the WNBA needs more marketing help is irrelevant and has nothing to do with whether Cuban's statement that Brittney Griner could try out for the Mavericks is a false promise or not. Let's stick to the subject at hand and not try to distract the audience from your weak argument.

Too many people already treat Griner like a freak because of her size.

It's not her size that gets me. It's her voice. That's a very different voice for a female. I don't think she is a freak, but I can't help but notice her voice isn't very lady-like. I always love it when a writer says something like "too many people" and then doesn't cite a single piece of evidence or a statement by these "people" to support this argument. It's like they are hoping by just making a blanket statement everyone will assume the statement is factual.

The last thing she should want is for the NBA to use her as a sideshow. 

I'm sorry, what was this article about again? Wasn't this article supposed to be about how Mark Cuban's comment made it seem like Brittney Griner had to legitimize herself by playing in the NBA? What ever happened to that argument (as weak as it was)? The column ended with JemeHill saying people think Brittney Griner is a freak and then saying the NBA shouldn't use her as a sideshow. So just remember girls (girl? who I am kidding, no girls read this blog), if someone tells you that you could play in the NBA then don't dare take this as a compliment because that is a huge insult to you and everyone thinks you are a freak. 

1 comments Winners and Losers from Game 1

So the Heat won and the Mavs lost. Pretty simple. But if you watched the game closely, some other winners and losers definitely slid into the conversation. So here’s to you, unsung heroes. And losers, try again in Game 2.

Winners:

NBA Fans: The first game time commercial break wasn’t until the 5:30 mark of the 1^st quarter. An impressive feat considering the monumental commercial-fest that usually ruins any semblance of momentum or flow that the NBA Finals attempts to find.

Juwan Howard: For getting in the game! And he grabbed an offensive rebound! I have to stop now before I blow a gasket.

Erik Spolestra: Midway through the first quarter, ABC simultaneously played an interview with Spoelstra and the first quarter action. For those of you paying close attention, you may have noticed that Spoelstra had stubble, as if he were trying to grow a beard. So kudos to you, Mr. Spoelstra, for hitting puberty.

Mike Miller: For exceeding the previously established gear maximum (known as the Allen Iverson line). Miller’s repetoire included an entire left arm sleeve (up through the shoulder), right wrist band, two knee braces, thumb braces on both hands, right forearm sweat band and last but not least, high socks. He was only missing a headband, neck brace and eye-black.

The Rim: For wagging its Dikembe finger at Jason Terry in the second quarter and Brendan Haywood in the third. The best part? Haywood’s fiasco came right after Van Gundy praised him as an “NBA starter.”

Rick Carlisle: For switching to zone in the second quarter. It completely stifled Miami’s attack and reenergized the Mavs.

Miami’s Crowd: For showing up before halftime! And they actually made noise! I’m getting too excited again.

Doris Burke: For wearing the craziest silver blazer of all time. It was glistening.

Doris Burke’s microphone: I can’t even describe it. It had a moving, flag-like screen on it. Totally unnecessary, but totally enjoyed.

LeBron James’ Three Ball: Four of five from distance, including an NBA 2K11 style fadeaway from the right side. Although he needs to work on his celebrations.

Dwyane Wade: For actually showing up in the 4^th and secretly padding all his stats when the game was already over.

Mike Breen: For having a coronary after the LeBron James and one dunk in the 4^th quarter. Who knew he could react with something other than “BANG!”

NBA Camera Crew: For zooming in on a fat guy celebrating after the Wade to LeBron alley-oop near the end of the game. You would think they would choose a hot girl, but no.

Losers:

Mike Bibby, Joel Anthony: For being the only players on the team with a negative plus/minus. But a bigger shoutout goes to Bibby for relocating to brick city. It’s always sad when a player’s only role is to hit shots, but he doesn’t hit any.

Erik Spoelstra: For continuing to play Mike Bibby. Chalmers should start, coach. He’s just as good a shooter, a better ballhandler and defender and more athletic. And Miami’s best lineup doesn’t even feature a point guard, so why use two?

NBA Fans: Because only 33 points were scored in the first quarter. Good thing the Heat and Mavs showed up at the same time as the crowd.

Jason Terry, Brendan Haywood: See “The Rim.”

Rick Carlisle’s hair: They say that stress causes hair loss. Well Rick Carlisle is under a lot of stress.

Peja Stojakovic: For a) combing his hair for the NBA Finals b) using the combover to hide his receding hairline c) for not scoring a point.

J.J. Barea: For being equally awful. But everything is forgiven because he’s dating a Miss Universe.

Mavs’ offense: For scoring 19 points in 18 minutes after the 7-0 run to begin the half. I know Miami’s defense is suffocating, but I wasn’t aware that the Mavs started five Tyson Chandlers.

Quotes of the game:

Mike Breen: “J.J. Barea still has trouble getting into arenas; security doesn’t believe that he’s a player.”

Jeff Van Gundy: (After LeBron bulldozed Tyson Chandler in the 1^st quarter and no foul was called.) It’s a good non-call if your Tyson Chandler’s chest. It just got concaved.”

16 comments On Dirk...

I’ve never really been much of a fan of Dirk Nowitzki. Don’t get me wrong, it didn’t take me very long to identify that he was a singular offensive force. I used to think him and Tracy McGrady were the only two players who could become completely unstoppable offensively. The new version of this is that him and Carmelo (as articulated by Charles Barkley) are the only two “unguardable” players in the NBA; Carmelo being a bigger, stronger, more refined but less elegant T-Mac. Nowitzki’s incredible shooting stroke, wide variety of shots and manoeuvres from 10-21 feet, ability to get to any spot on the floor and of course, his height, made him a weapon unlike any other.

But “weapon” is a backhanded compliment in the NBA. You don’t call Kobe Bryant a “weapon”. You don’t call Tim Duncan a “weapon”, nor Shaquille O’Neal or Dwyane Wade. It is a truth universally acknowledged that the NBA Finals is really a place for a select club of perhaps 4-5 guys at any one time that can actually drive a team to a championship. To gain entry you simply had to do it – no amount of talk, numbers, or highlights could compensate. Dwyane Wade needed to put himself out of commission for three years by throwing himself at Maverick defenders one hundred times in order to gain entry. This was a key factor in what made The Decision so appalling. It seemed so obvious that LeBron James was the best player on the planet, and yet, year after year, he not only could not enter the club, but didn’t seem to be particularly close. Increasingly it became a worrying trend, sort of thrilling – “is it possible for the best basketball player on the planet to not be able to win a championship?” It’s what allowed the ludicrous assertion that Kobe Bryant was better to gain traction and become oddly appealing. By joining Dwyane Wade, LeBron dodged the question entirely and everyone felt cheated out of the most intriguing storyline in the NBA – not only couldn’t LeBron do it, he didn’t give a shit either.

Still, LeBron’s situation was immeasurably stronger than Dirk’s. After all, Dirk was following an established trail. Any player in the awkward position between this club of just a handful of centrepieces and the Chris Bosh/Ray Allen zone of being an excellent situational player transforms increasingly into Gollum. They were gradually forced into “the compromise” phase of their careers, where they had tried, and failed, to be “The Guy” on a championship team. After a certain period of time, they moved desperately to a location where they either had one of the Masters of the Universe already, or there were so many of these second and third tier guys that they could form one of these “superteams” to overcome all obstacles. Barkley was 35 when he joined Hakeem in 1996-1997. Drexler was 33 when he joined the Rockets two seasons prior. Kevin Garnett moved to Boston at 31 in 2007, however coming straight out of high school, he had been in the league for 12 years. The ageless Malone was, well…aging, when, at 41, he joined the Lakers. Payton was 37 when he joined Miami’s bench in 2006. No action was required for the fortunate David Robinson in 1999, 33, when Tim Duncan fell into the Spurs lap. In each case, the pattern was clear; the player, along with his team, had peaked some 3-6 years prior (in Payton’s case, 10 years) and both had gradually yet unequivocally declined since that point. From Finals, to Conference Finals, to Conference Semi-Finals, things were clearly doomed with each player’s original team and were they to stay, the player themselves.

Only two players in this stratum of players have grimly held on to the bitter end; Dirk and Nash. In both cases, fans have looked in bewilderment as they march on in clearly hopeless situations. Dallas met the criteria perfectly. Finalists in 2006 with Dirk’s peak, the 67 win first round exit the following year, followed by unremarkable early round losses each following year. What possible reason was there to think improvement was in store as Dirk moved deeper and deeper into his thirties? Dirk seemed impervious to the cries from the sidelines for the preservation of his legacy. Last offseason, the craziest in NBA history, he quietly re-upped for four years with the Mavericks, presumably sealing his titleless fate, leaving a permanent stain on his career (however silly it may seem) in the eyes of many.

The contrast with LeBron could not be more stark from this perspective. LeBron, in his prime, some eight years younger than Dirk, had given up on the 66 and 61 win, first seed in an okish conference, Cavaliers. Dirk, with his 11 straight futile 50+ win seasons, constantly emasculated by the Spurs, and then spectacularly knocked off by the as yet unproven Wade in the Finals on a seemingly miracle trip on the one time he was able to muscle past them. No one personified “quick fix” more than LeBron James, bailing on the city that loved him more than any city loved any player since Jordan in Chicago, despite 8 million a year pay cut and perpetual first seeds, for the chance to play with an established member of the club, not remotely interested in proving himself. No one personified persistence in the face of innumerable odds and futile circumstances more than Dirk (save perhaps the aforementioned Nash), a modern day basketball Sisyphus. It’s this matter/anti-matter quality that gives the Finals a unique flavour.

Expanding on that is the team around Nowitzki. It has been covered extensively, but it is a team dripping with regret and desperation. Coming up short again and again in ever more heartbreaking fashion. Kidd participated in a pair of farcical finals series, winning just two games, with meaningless Eastern Conference Titles as a kind of ironic punctuation point on the whole exercise. Shawn Marion was part of the slow death of the Phoenix Suns, a team that got everyone excited and were thwarted time and time again, no matter what variation of the seven seconds or less theme they tried. The trade to Miami, a failed attempt to revamp the Suns from bottom up, signalled the end of their title ambitions and was one of the most depressing trades made in recent times. Stojakovic was Donaghy’d in 2002. Terry has been Dirk’s deputy in these wilderness years, and felt the pain of 2006 as deeply as anyone. There could be no more fitting star to put in the middle of this team than Dirk.

As improbable as this run has been, when Dallas were certified, lose in the first two rounds specialists, it is clearly and unequivocally the last. The last time I can remember a team playing in a Finals where it was obvious to all that it would be the last was the 1998 Chicago Bulls…and they had the consolation of knowing they had won five titles already. Even Garnett and co. last year harboured legitimate hopes of a return trip. For Dallas, there really is no tomorrow. Kidd has already gone far beyond any other legitimate starting point guard in modern times at 38. Stojakovic has averaged about 12 points, shooting 40% in the last three years, and is in the process of stringing together his final relevant streak of basketball, tapping the very last reserves. Tyson Chandler is a walking injury who’s rebounding has dropped 30% since 2008. Brendan Haywood turns 33 by the start of next season. Terry will be 34. And they all will be coming off a 100+ game season. They may miss the playoffs, the degree they have laid it all out here…and they are capped out.

This is the landscape of these Finals for Dirk. They have been ignored much of the year, and ignored is the word. It wasn’t even that they have been written off or dismissed, they simply didn’t merit consideration at all, everyone had the book on the Mavs – they will lose, what possible reason did we have to imagine them being better than 2006? And the truth is, on paper, it’s impossible to make the argument that they are. This run has been founded on ruthless determination to win. It’s exactly the sort of sports journalism bullshit I revile, and dismiss and roll my eyes at, but this time? It absolutely is. The Lakers sweep was the meeting of two teams on extreme ends of the “caring about this” spectrum. One had grown full and fat on championships, the other was just tenacious in the extreme. Gradually, the Mavs have forced the world to take them increasingly seriously, and as that process has taken place, the pressure on Dirk has been turned up substantially and really, rather suddenly. After all, there was no real pressure in round one; it was assumed they’d lose. And in round two, obviously they would lose to the Lakers. Even after winning game one, it was a given L.A. would respond in game two. But after winning those first two games, suddenly everyone was watching, waiting for the Mavs to fold. The pressure Dallas has been under the past seven games has been more than at any time in the Dirk era, as the real possibility this could actually happen came into focus. Effectively this was a game seven of his entire career, extended over an entire playoffs. And as the microscope has zoomed in closer and closer, what has happened to Dirk? He’s gotten exponentially better. Each passing game the legend has grown.

And it’s all predicated purely on how much he wants it. A level of desire that can only be reached through more than a decade of disappointment, of rebuke, of despondency, despair and finally, irrelevance and mockery. It’s that well that Nowitzki has tapped into, in one of the most profound “no one believed in us, in me” stories in recent sports history. Say what you want, but there’s no way LeBron can have the first inkling of what it feels like to be considered irrelevant, to be mocked, to be ignored. He all but has his own TV station, and basically has a golden statue of him on the desk of Sportscenter. That is another sense Dirk is the anti-LeBron, the matter/anti-matter thing again. LeBron can’t possibly want this as bad as Dirk does, I’m not sure any player has ever wanted to win a championship more.

It’s why I think Dallas will beat this monstrosity of a team in seven games.